LFL Founder Out Of Hiding With Extraordinary Solution to fix
Government:Peopleisim.org

ADVERTISE HERE:

U.S. Constitution, Eleventh
Amendment

âThe Judicial power of the
United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit
in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the
United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens
or Subjects of any Foreign State.â

The 11th is blatantly clear, it
really needs no interpretation.

ANALYSIS OF THE 11TH AMENDMENT:

What are the two powers through
which the courts rule?

Judicial power

Jury power

And note that Judicial power is
questionable, however, Jury power may not be reexamined (7th
Amendment). Also do not be deceived, the Jury has the power to judge both the law and the fact

A classic example of the jury
process in which there is absolutely zero judicial involvement
from administrative, adjudicative or any decision making power
what so ever is the Gran Jury process. There is no judge in a
Grand Jury, the jury is made up of "we the people" and decides
both fact and law. Grand Juries make up a critical component of
the legal framework mandated by the Constitution as dictated in
the Fifth Amendment "No person shall be held to answer for a
capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or
indictment of a Grand Jury".

The very construct of the
Constitution, the essence of the formation of the United States
of America, is founded on the principle of eliminating
tyrannical government; the construct that the government can not
do what they want; the principle that all stand equal before the
law and that all parties to suits are entitled to impartial
decision makers; etc. Consequentially, the establishment of the
11th Amendment is based upon the principle that the judiciary,
which consists of a group of individuals whom are employed by
the State, naturally has no authority to preside over a case
brought against their employer, the State.

Suits brought against the State
can thus naturally only be adjudicated by Jury where the
decision maker in the trial or in any matter leading up to the
trial is no party to the suit and where the Jury in accordance
with the construct of Trial By Jury, decides both the law and
the fact. "The jury has the right to judge both the law and the
facts" - Samuel Chase, 1804, Supreme Court Justice and signer of
the Declaration of Independence.

In a Trial By Jury the judiciary
has no function. The judiciary has no power to dismiss a case or
weigh the merits of a case that is brought before the court for
a trial by jury. Those are functions absolutely and completely
reserved for the jury. Clearly the judiciary has no authority to
make any decisions in a Trial by Jury, otherwise, it is no
longer a Trial By Jury, it becomes a Trial by Judge. If, for
example, a judge orders that certain evidence be not presented
to a jury, then that judge holds the power to influence the
outcome of the trial and it is a trial by judge and not by jury.

One of the key reasons the courts
are so utterly corrupt in the United States is because judges
rush in and take control of trials by jury, thereby exceeding
their jurisdiction and according to the law, those judges commit
treason. That is they pervert the very construct of law and
order and governance in the nation. Judges so readily commit
treason in our courts because they know the appeal process
offered to those the commit treason against is made up of
appellate courts consisting entirely of judges employed by the
State.

In other words, judges have
completely destroyed the Trial By Jury process within U.S.
courts, committing high treason of the very worst kind. Rampant
abuse of process and the destruction of the Constitutionally
mandated law and order within the nation has resulted. The
Judiciary and Executive Office have now become so completely out
of control that they themselves now make law, ignoring Article
1, Section. 8 of the Constitution which dictates that "The
Congress shall have Power.... To exercise exclusive Legislation
in all Cases whatsoever, over such district". The tricameral
construct of government in the United States explicitly limits
lawmaking power to Congress. The Executive and Judicial branch
of government is explicitly prohibited from making law. (Note
that Common Law dictates that if a law cannot be
understood/interpreted by the common man, then it is not law.
i.e. there is no judicial construct to interpreting law - if the
common person cannot understand the law then it must be sent
back to Congress as void, forcing Congress to rewrite the law so
that the common man can understand it. Note also that the
"Code" is not law, it is code, like a "code of ethics" see LAW and Understanding Law in the U.S.)

Clearly the judiciary has no
decision making authority in suits brought against their
colleagues.

Commentary regarding Supreme
Court Analysis of the 11th Amendment: Many courts including
the Supreme Court have made a number of contradictory and
clearly blatantly void rulings in regard to the 11th Amendment.
Astonishingly, the courts have read into the 11th not only
concepts that are absolutely not there, but concepts that scream
in the opposite direction to the construct of the Constitution.
In particular, the concept of "sovereign immunity of government"
and the elimination of accountability of the State.

Great error has crept into many
judicial decisions in regard to the idea of Sovereign immunity,
which is not mentioned once in any way or in any part of the
Constitution. Such a concept flies in the opposite direction of
the principles and purposes upon which the government of the
U.S. was established. There is absolutely no principle of
Sovereign immunity under the Constitution, which goes to great
lengths to ensure equality and responsibility under the law and
is the exact opposite of any suggestion of a sovereign class or
of any immunity. To the contrary, government entities and
employees, if anyone, are to be held to a higher standard when
it comes to responsibility under the law, they are utterly
accountable â this after all was the purpose of establishing the
U.S. and the underlying construct of the Constitution.

Immunity is mentioned only twice
in the Constitution:
Article IV, Section. 2. "The Citizens of each State shall be
entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the
several States." thus implying absolute equality of all citizens
whether or not they work for the State or not. And in Section 1
of the 14th Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the
United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they
reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty,
or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
which further enforces the construct of equality.

There is categorically and
absolutely zero implication or statement within the 11th
Amendment that says or implies that a State cannot be sued or
has 'sovereign immunity', it simply is not there. All the 11th
says is that judges have no power (Judicial power). What other
decision making power remains? Naturally the other cornerstone
of the judicial system: Jury power.

There are two ways to decide a
case in a Court: Either by Jury or by Judge. The very construct
of Trial by Jury was given to our nation so that the very
construct of Judicial corruption could be overcome. The very
reason we give the Jury the power to decide both the law and the
fact is because we know, as the founding fathers knew, that the
government and in particular the judiciary, would become
corrupt. And how they have!

Take a look at what "Judicial
Power" has attempted to infer as to their absurd interpretation
of the 11th Amendment:
- the judiciary goes as absurdly far as to suggest that a State
cannot be sued, which is a classic example of the Judiciary
attempting to make law because no where does the 11th Amendment
or any part of the Constitution say or infer such;
- the Judiciary has even tried to make new law saying that âthey
the governmentâ is Sovereign, that âthey the governmentâ can
Lord it over âwe the peopleâ as âKings and Queensâ who have been
put on the throne by God Himself (thereby taking on the very
persona of King George who was thrown out by the American
Revolution);
- And that they the government, like the King and Queen, can do
no wrong because, after all, God put them on the nations throne,
and God can do no wrong. This is the origins of sovereign
immunity under English Common Law which is subordinate to and
overruled by our Constitution.

The Judiciary's interpretation of
the 11th is utterly and categorically and pathetically absurd!
The U.S.A. was founded so as to bring accountability to
government, there is no king or queen in the U.S., all stand
equal before the law.

As for the Kings and Queens of
Englandâs idea that because the Bible states that God puts
authorities on the throne (Romans 13:1 âfor there is no
authority except that which God has establishedâ), that this
some how grants the King or Queen sovereign immunity, it too, is
also utterly absurd and illogical. Since such a foolish analysis
ignores the fact that und such construct, it implies that God
also put people like Hitler or Bush on the âthroneâ. Clearly,
such a positioning is not one to be respected, but rather that
perhaps Godâs reasoning for such, is more likely to chastise us
to stand up against such tyrants, to speak out for the common
man, and to stand up for justice and to hold tyrannical rulers
accountable.

The very behavior of Judicial
power within the U.S. illustrates the exact purpose of the 11th
which is to eliminate Judicial power in suits where judges are
parties to the suit. In any suit in law or equity, commenced or
prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of
another State. The Judiciary is employed by the entity against
which the suit is brought and therefore obviously has no
authority to preside over such a suit as they have good reason
for inherent bias.